Effectiveness of programs that offer individualized, multifactorial support to community-dwelling older people with ongoing health and social care needs: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to assess the effectiveness of programs that offer individualized, multifactorial support to community-dwelling older people with ongoing health and social care needs and to report how these programs affect quality of life and health system outcomes. INTRODUCTION: As people age, they often have multiple chronic conditions and functional impairment, and as a result, they need support to live well. Nursing homes and other residential facilities provide care for people with such needs; however, they can be expensive and older people generally prefer to remain at home, in their community. There is growing interest in programs that offer individualized, multifactorial support in the community for people with complex health and social care needs. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will focus on the effectiveness of programs that offer individualized, multifactorial support in the community for people over the age of 60 who are identified as having ongoing health and social care needs. The review will assess quality of life and health system outcomes, such as hospital admission. METHODS: This review will be conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of effectiveness. Ten databases will be searched for published and unpublished studies. Titles, abstracts, and full-text studies will be screened by 2 or more independent reviewers and assessed for methodological validity using the standard JBI critical assessment tools. Relevant data will be extracted using the JBI data extraction tools. The data will then be synthesized and reported using measures of evidence certainty. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022324061.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".